Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Start with a book called “The Millionaire Next Door.” When you’re done roll right into “The Millionaire Mind”. It seems that just about 80% of all new millionaires have done it just the way I’ve described, beginning with nothing. How about that?

Even if it did happen like that, it still wouldn’t matter. The fact that anyone can be a slave owner doesn’t legitimize slavery (I’m not actually calling them slave owners, it’s just an illustration).[/quote]

It’s a darn poor illustration. In America if you don’t want to work for one company you quit and go to work for another one. If you don’t like being a plumber you can change careers. If you don’t like working for someone else you can save your money, or borrow some and begin your own business. What a great country we live in - I thank God every day that I was born in America! And I’m sure glad that socialism has no chance of taking hold.

[quote]How is it faire to take 50% of what the guy worked really hard to get? And then give it to the clown (way) down the street who can’t get his ass out of bed in the morning?

Because in most cases, he didn’t work really hard to get it[/quote]

As I’ve shown with my two examples above he did work really hard to get it. Stop pretending to be stupid.

It most certainly is. And by the way anything which creates wealth is productive.

[quote]Wrong, you make money from your labor AND wise investments with the money that you made with your labor (stock market investments promote growth for that company). Saying that a guy who grosses 10 mil per year because he owns 10 ice cream shops (for example) doesn’t deserve it
is an insane comment to make.

It’s not an insane comment, it’s grounded in an understand of what actually happens in the economy. It’s your opinion that he deserves it, which is fine, but it is my opinion that he does not. Both are valid.[/quote]

Explain why he doesn’t deserve it.

One more post down and one more time you didn’t name even one socialist country that has succeeded in a positive way long-term. I guess this means that you give up. This means that your theories when put into practice do not work.

:slight_smile:

262

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
…And I’m still waiting for Ryan to tell us all where in the world socialism has ever succeeded in a positive way in the long-term.
[/quote]

United States?[/quote]

Ha ha…not yet. And hopefully never.

263

here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

264

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

Take that back to the old world. Nope,…sorry. Your own drive determines your own worth, and you don’t need any government to intervene on that.

I applaud your tireless rhetoric, yet it has no place in the USA. [/quote]

Are you suggesting “drive” is the only thing that determines a persons financial situation?[/quote]

Yes, the major factor. What else is Luck? Maybe, but it’s possible with drive.

265

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

Only if the Government serve as the rich and finance the materials, manufacturing distribution and marketing costs. Did you really just ask that?

266

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

No ir isnt, because every worker is a capitalist, albeit not a very good one.

267

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

Only if the Government serve as the rich and finance the materials, manufacturing distribution and marketing costs. Did you really just ask that?[/quote]

It was a retorical question, wich means I know the answer. haha… The answer is not government. Its “human labor is the cornerstone in any human ecomony/production system”. In simple words: you dont get a table if nobody cuts a tree down to get the materials for the table. you dont get a table if nobody builds the table out of the materials. So in short human labor are essential, governmets and capitalists are not.

268

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

Only if the Government serve as the rich and finance the materials, manufacturing distribution and marketing costs. Did you really just ask that?[/quote]

It was a retorical question, wich means I know the answer. haha… The answer is not government. Its “human labor is the cornerstone in any human ecomony/production system”. In simple words: you dont get a table if nobody cuts a tree down to get the materials for the table. you dont get a table if nobody builds the table out of the materials. So in short human labor are essential, governmets and capitalists are not. [/quote]

Who had the idea to sell the table?

269

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Well, lets not get into investing just yet.
So now, the baker who now has a part time accountant hired and is working 12 hour days to cope with the demand realizes that demand has increased again and he needs some help around the bakery, mostly cleaning stuff. Basically he needs a janitor.
So he sits down with his accountant, they look at the books and figure out that he can hire one and pay him.
He don’t want a high school kid or someone just looking to get by so he is willing to pay over the minimum wage even though obviously the work can be performed by anyone physically capable of wiping their ass. His “Help Wanted” sign attracts a few ppl and he chooses one to work for him full time .

Now he has an accountant and a janitor. So far so good aka no unfair exploitation of proletariat noticed? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

So long as the baker is not receiving an extra portion of the income simply because he owns the shop, it is not exploitation. Basically, worker ownership is the idea, so everyone who works there gets to help decide what to do with profits. A cooperative.

Now, in reality, a single bakery with three people working there probably needn’t be a cooperative. Socialism is designed to apply to advanced industrial economies. It doesn’t really come into as much on smaller scales because there’s simply not much room for exploitation. I mean how much could that baker be selling? After he pays the salaries of his two employees, and his wages, and expenses, he probably doens’t have a whole lot left.
[/quote]

k, then so a baker with 2 employees is OK.
good.
now his neighbor who also has a bakery decides to retire and move to Florida.
our baker sees an opportunity and decides to buy neighbor’s bakery as well.
he however doesn’t have enough cash so he decides to apply for a business loan.
he sits down with his accountant, they put a business plan together and go to the bank.
long story short - he gets a loan in his name and buys his neighbor’s bakery.
there is some risk involved since he’s not 100% sure the demand will stay high enough to pay for the increased cost of operation which now includes loan payments but he takes the risk.

so far so good?
[/quote]

I think Ryan will like that - He’s not yet evil. I don’t think the guy becomes evil until he hits the 1 million dollar mark in sales. Or, does he base it on employees? Wait I think if he actually employs people he’s evil. No wait it might be a certain number of people then he’s evil because only the government is supposed to employ people. Hmm, RYAN? Can you clear this up for us? Just when does this hard working guy become evil?
[/quote]

That’s what I’m trying to find out :slight_smile:

A “true” marxist would’ve started arguing right away, along the lines of - “profit is teh evilz, the baker can’t make more than the “baking wage” established by the government” etc etc.

270

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

Only if the Government serve as the rich and finance the materials, manufacturing distribution and marketing costs. Did you really just ask that?[/quote]

It was a retorical question, wich means I know the answer. haha… The answer is not government. Its “human labor is the cornerstone in any human ecomony/production system”. In simple words: you dont get a table if nobody cuts a tree down to get the materials for the table. you dont get a table if nobody builds the table out of the materials. So in short human labor are essential, governmets and capitalists are not. [/quote]

Who had the idea to sell the table?[/quote]

who said any thing about selling it. The point is that the table only exist aslong humans put down the specific labor neccesary to create the table regardless if its creators wants to sell it or use it themself. It could also be a book, a field of corn, a housingblock etc. Without labor they cannot exist.

but I see where you want to go with your question, so I ask you this: who had the idea to sell the cotton, the slaveowner or the slave?

271

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

so? farmers can survive without dentists but not the other way around.
cockroaches can survive nuclear winter without hiding out in bunkers, humans can’t.
etc etc. what’s your point?

272

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Well, lets not get into investing just yet.
So now, the baker who now has a part time accountant hired and is working 12 hour days to cope with the demand realizes that demand has increased again and he needs some help around the bakery, mostly cleaning stuff. Basically he needs a janitor.
So he sits down with his accountant, they look at the books and figure out that he can hire one and pay him.
He don’t want a high school kid or someone just looking to get by so he is willing to pay over the minimum wage even though obviously the work can be performed by anyone physically capable of wiping their ass. His “Help Wanted” sign attracts a few ppl and he chooses one to work for him full time .

Now he has an accountant and a janitor. So far so good aka no unfair exploitation of proletariat noticed? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

So long as the baker is not receiving an extra portion of the income simply because he owns the shop, it is not exploitation. Basically, worker ownership is the idea, so everyone who works there gets to help decide what to do with profits. A cooperative.

Now, in reality, a single bakery with three people working there probably needn’t be a cooperative. Socialism is designed to apply to advanced industrial economies. It doesn’t really come into as much on smaller scales because there’s simply not much room for exploitation. I mean how much could that baker be selling? After he pays the salaries of his two employees, and his wages, and expenses, he probably doens’t have a whole lot left.
[/quote]

k, then so a baker with 2 employees is OK.
good.
now his neighbor who also has a bakery decides to retire and move to Florida.
our baker sees an opportunity and decides to buy neighbor’s bakery as well.
he however doesn’t have enough cash so he decides to apply for a business loan.
he sits down with his accountant, they put a business plan together and go to the bank.
long story short - he gets a loan in his name and buys his neighbor’s bakery.
there is some risk involved since he’s not 100% sure the demand will stay high enough to pay for the increased cost of operation which now includes loan payments but he takes the risk.

so far so good?
[/quote]

I think Ryan will like that - He’s not yet evil. I don’t think the guy becomes evil until he hits the 1 million dollar mark in sales. Or, does he base it on employees? Wait I think if he actually employs people he’s evil. No wait it might be a certain number of people then he’s evil because only the government is supposed to employ people. Hmm, RYAN? Can you clear this up for us? Just when does this hard working guy become evil?
[/quote]

That’s what I’m trying to find out :slight_smile:

A “true” marxist would’ve started arguing right away, along the lines of - “profit is teh evilz, the baker can’t make more than the “baking wage” established by the government” etc etc.

[/quote]

Ryan just can’t seem to tell me two things at this point: 1. What socialist country has ever succeeded long-term. And 2. When does a man trying to financially succeed in life become evil.

I have to tell you I have never read such rubbish than this socialist nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense, as you already know. He rails against business yet imbues government with yet even more power. Does he really think that an out of control super powerful government will not abuse such power? It’s happened every time.

273

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

Take that back to the old world. Nope,…sorry. Your own drive determines your own worth, and you don’t need any government to intervene on that.

I applaud your tireless rhetoric, yet it has no place in the USA. [/quote]

Are you suggesting “drive” is the only thing that determines a persons financial situation?[/quote]

Yes, the major factor. What else is Luck? Maybe, but it’s possible with drive.[/quote]

Circumstance is a bigger factor than drive. Like I said before, our economic system is designed to make the rich richer and the poor as they are.

I could cite countless examples of advantage begetting advantage and disadvantage leading to disadvantage.

“Everybody has an equal chance! Its all about personal drive.” Simply isn’t true.

Besides, a system where any few individuals can become successful is inferior to a system where the vast majority can all at once be successful. In our system, thats impossible - you get successful by being the owner of the company and getting lots of people to work for you. So even if you climb the ladder or build a company, that still leaves the majority of people in that company unsuccessful. Because any one person could, hypothetically, become rich at the expense of the success of others does not make it good.

274

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

Take that back to the old world. Nope,…sorry. Your own drive determines your own worth, and you don’t need any government to intervene on that.

I applaud your tireless rhetoric, yet it has no place in the USA. [/quote]

Are you suggesting “drive” is the only thing that determines a persons financial situation?[/quote]

Yes, the major factor. What else is Luck? Maybe, but it’s possible with drive.[/quote]

Circumstance is a bigger factor than drive. Like I said before, our economic system is designed to make the rich richer and the poor as they are.

I could cite countless examples of advantage begetting advantage and disadvantage leading to disadvantage.

“Everybody has an equal chance! Its all about personal drive.” Simply isn’t true.

Besides, a system where any few individuals can become successful is inferior to a system where the vast majority can all at once be successful. In our system, thats impossible - you get successful by being the owner of the company and getting lots of people to work for you. So even if you climb the ladder or build a company, that still leaves the majority of people in that company unsuccessful. Because any one person could, hypothetically, become rich at the expense of the success of others does not make it good.
[/quote]

First of all I agree with your premise. Circumstances are very important and it is true that success begets success. There is a momentum with financial success that is very near that of a sports team on a roll. Sometimes when you win you just keep winning. In business doors are opened for you. With that said, don’t discount the fact that at least in America anyone can become wealthy if that is his or her’s strong desire and they have enough talent to back it up. It’s not easy but it is certainly obtainable.

Next, regarding you scenario of “unsuccessful” employees. Keep in mind that most people either don’t have the desire, or skill to open their own business and are perfectly happy working for someone else. If they are treated well and in turn treat their company well, it can make for a good life.

Finally, there is no system where everyone is the boss and there are no workers. However, that doesn’t mean that those workers are mistreated or paid poorly. For example, a good business person - no matter how talented - knows that he/she will only succeed as far as the workers are skilled enough and motivated enough to carry it forward.

275

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
…And I’m still waiting for Ryan to tell us all where in the world socialism has ever succeeded in a positive way in the long-term.
[/quote]

United States?[/quote]

Hahaha…long term? Really?!

It is currently in decline, anyway.

276

[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all I agree with your premise. Circumstances are very important and it is true that success begets success. There is a momentum with financial success that is very near that of a sports team on a roll. Sometimes when you win you just keep winning. In business doors are opened for you. With that said, don’t discount the fact that at least in America anyone can become wealthy if that is his or her’s strong desire and they have enough talent to back it up. It’s not easy but it is certainly obtainable.
[/quote]

True, anyone can. But to say that the system is “fair” when some are born into a life of building disadvantage and others are born into a life of building advantage is like saying a race is fair when you give the people with the head start spingy shoes that make each stride longer and giving backpacks full of rocks to the people who start in the back.

Its easy to discount the psychological effects of being one of those people in the back. Its easy to type the words “Just struggle for 20 years to get a moderate chance at success and you can make it!” and another thing entirely to do that. People get tired, people get depressed, people get discouraged.

So you tell the person who was in the back and eventually decides “fuck this race” that its his own damn fault and he had a “fair” chance. Which is what I meant about the system screwing the poor and the poor deciding to screw the system. “Fine, want to set everything up to keep me poor. I’ll weasel every free cent I can out of you.”

[quote]

Next, regarding you scenario of “unsuccessful” employees. Keep in mind that most people either don’t have the desire, or skill to open their own business and are perfectly happy working for someone else. If they are treated well and in turn treat their company well, it can make for a good life.

Finally, there is no system where everyone is the boss and there are no workers. However, that doesn’t mean that those workers are mistreated or paid poorly. For example, a good business person - no matter how talented - knows that he/she will only succeed as far as the workers are skilled enough and motivated enough to carry it forward. [/quote]

Thats true as well. Most people are happy working for someone else, and many companies, especially small privately owned ones, have good employee/employer relationships and the employees are comfortable.

But there are just as many companies, and most of the bigger ones, where the exorbitant salaries of some are funded by the people making 9 or 10 dollars an hour. Its impossible to support themselves or a family on that kind of pay, but working 40 hours a week leaves them too emotionally and/or physically tired to do the things they’re told they need to do to"improve" their situation.

So they’re stuck spending their lives working hard to make other people (boss, stockholders, banks, landlords, insurance companies) rich. And then its little wonder when they resent the affluent.

277

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Its easy to discount the psychological effects of being one of those people in the back. Its easy to type the words “Just struggle for 20 years to get a moderate chance at success and you can make it!” and another thing entirely to do that. People get tired, people get depressed, people get discouraged.[/quote]

Then people don’t make it. It’s not fair never said it was. Just as life isn’t fair. Some are tall, naturally well built and good looking, others short, fat and not good to look at. Life isn’t fair in any way and it never will be.

Yeah some people do get bitter. But, those who shoot for the stars and don’t make it usually settle in at some level where they are competent. Most people however don’t shoot for the stars know their capabilities and work for someone else and are quite happy doing so.

[quote]

Next, regarding you scenario of “unsuccessful” employees. Keep in mind that most people either don’t have the desire, or skill to open their own business and are perfectly happy working for someone else. If they are treated well and in turn treat their company well, it can make for a good life.

Finally, there is no system where everyone is the boss and there are no workers. However, that doesn’t mean that those workers are mistreated or paid poorly. For example, a good business person - no matter how talented - knows that he/she will only succeed as far as the workers are skilled enough and motivated enough to carry it forward.

Thats true as well. Most people are happy working for someone else, and many companies, especially small privately owned ones, have good employee/employer relationships and the employees are comfortable.

But there are just as many companies, and most of the bigger ones, where the exorbitant salaries of some are funded by the people making 9 or 10 dollars an hour. Its impossible to support themselves or a family on that kind of pay, but working 40 hours a week leaves them too emotionally and/or physically tired to do the things they’re told they need to do to"improve" their situation.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. If someone really wants change in their life they find it. Just like someone who wants to gain muscle. It’s not easy, there are many difficult workouts ahead of him, but he finds a way to get it done. Yet, some people are born as mesomorphs and have it much easier - so what? Success in any walk of life can be hard at times.

Jealousy has been around ever since Cain slew Able. And it will always be around as long as one person has more than another. Human nature will never change.

278

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Its easy to discount the psychological effects of being one of those people in the back. Its easy to type the words “Just struggle for 20 years to get a moderate chance at success and you can make it!” and another thing entirely to do that. People get tired, people get depressed, people get discouraged.[/quote]

Then people don’t make it. It’s not fair never said it was. Just as life isn’t fair. Some are tall, naturally well built and good looking, others short, fat and not good to look at. Life isn’t fair in any way and it never will be.

Yeah some people do get bitter. But, those who shoot for the stars and don’t make it usually settle in at some level where they are competent. Most people however don’t shoot for the stars know their capabilities and work for someone else and are quite happy doing so.

[quote]

Next, regarding you scenario of “unsuccessful” employees. Keep in mind that most people either don’t have the desire, or skill to open their own business and are perfectly happy working for someone else. If they are treated well and in turn treat their company well, it can make for a good life.

Finally, there is no system where everyone is the boss and there are no workers. However, that doesn’t mean that those workers are mistreated or paid poorly. For example, a good business person - no matter how talented - knows that he/she will only succeed as far as the workers are skilled enough and motivated enough to carry it forward.

Thats true as well. Most people are happy working for someone else, and many companies, especially small privately owned ones, have good employee/employer relationships and the employees are comfortable.

But there are just as many companies, and most of the bigger ones, where the exorbitant salaries of some are funded by the people making 9 or 10 dollars an hour. Its impossible to support themselves or a family on that kind of pay, but working 40 hours a week leaves them too emotionally and/or physically tired to do the things they’re told they need to do to"improve" their situation.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. If someone really wants change in their life they find it. Just like someone who wants to gain muscle. It’s not easy, there are many difficult workouts ahead of him, but he finds a way to get it done. Yet, some people are born as mesomorphs and have it much easier - so what? Success in any walk of life can be hard at times.

Jealousy has been around ever since Cain slew Able. And it will always be around as long as one person has more than another. Human nature will never change.[/quote]

  1. Natural inequalities do not justify artificial inequalities. To go back to my race analogy, yes, some people are naturally tall, thin, fast runners and some are short fat slow runners. But this natural inequality does not justify the artificial practice of giving some a head start and springy shoes and putting others in the back with heavy backpacks. Its simply not the same thing and the one doesnt justify the other.

  2. First off, its not jealousy, its resentment. Calling it jealousy is ignorant. Secondly, and more importantly, I disagree with your “human nature” assessment.

And thats the heart of the problem, really.

279

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Its easy to discount the psychological effects of being one of those people in the back. Its easy to type the words “Just struggle for 20 years to get a moderate chance at success and you can make it!” and another thing entirely to do that. People get tired, people get depressed, people get discouraged.[/quote]

Then people don’t make it. It’s not fair never said it was. Just as life isn’t fair. Some are tall, naturally well built and good looking, others short, fat and not good to look at. Life isn’t fair in any way and it never will be.

Yeah some people do get bitter. But, those who shoot for the stars and don’t make it usually settle in at some level where they are competent. Most people however don’t shoot for the stars know their capabilities and work for someone else and are quite happy doing so.

[quote]

Next, regarding you scenario of “unsuccessful” employees. Keep in mind that most people either don’t have the desire, or skill to open their own business and are perfectly happy working for someone else. If they are treated well and in turn treat their company well, it can make for a good life.

Finally, there is no system where everyone is the boss and there are no workers. However, that doesn’t mean that those workers are mistreated or paid poorly. For example, a good business person - no matter how talented - knows that he/she will only succeed as far as the workers are skilled enough and motivated enough to carry it forward.

Thats true as well. Most people are happy working for someone else, and many companies, especially small privately owned ones, have good employee/employer relationships and the employees are comfortable.

But there are just as many companies, and most of the bigger ones, where the exorbitant salaries of some are funded by the people making 9 or 10 dollars an hour. Its impossible to support themselves or a family on that kind of pay, but working 40 hours a week leaves them too emotionally and/or physically tired to do the things they’re told they need to do to"improve" their situation.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. If someone really wants change in their life they find it. Just like someone who wants to gain muscle. It’s not easy, there are many difficult workouts ahead of him, but he finds a way to get it done. Yet, some people are born as mesomorphs and have it much easier - so what? Success in any walk of life can be hard at times.

Jealousy has been around ever since Cain slew Able. And it will always be around as long as one person has more than another. Human nature will never change.[/quote]

  1. Natural inequalities do not justify artificial inequalities. To go back to my race analogy, yes, some people are naturally tall, thin, fast runners and some are short fat slow runners. But this natural inequality does not justify the artificial practice of giving some a head start and springy shoes and putting others in the back with heavy backpacks. Its simply not the same thing and the one doesnt justify the other.

  2. First off, its not jealousy, its resentment. Calling it jealousy is ignorant. Secondly, and more importantly, I disagree with your “human nature” assessment.

And thats the heart of the problem, really. [/quote]

Jealousy, resentment doesn’t matter. Anyone who is annoyed because another person has more than they do should channel that into more success in their own life. But, I’ve found that those types want to pull the successful person down to their level. They don’t have what it takes to succeed and merely wish that the one who has succeeded start failing until they get to the point where they are over them in some way.

As for equality, it will never happen as it cannot happen. Government can’t do it, business can’t do it. The reason is simple, we are all born with different abilities, desires and into different circumstances and from that will spring success or failure.

That’s pretty much that.

280

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Jealousy, resentment doesn’t matter. Anyone who is annoyed because another person has more than they do should channel that into more success in their own life. But, I’ve found that those types want to pull the successful person down to their level. They don’t have what it takes to succeed and merely wish that the one who has succeeded start failing until they get to the point where they are over them in some way.

As for equality, it will never happen as it cannot happen. Government can’t do it, business can’t do it. The reason is simple, we are all born with different abilities, desires and into different circumstances and from that will spring success or failure.

That’s pretty much that.
[/quote]

Its not that they’re “annoyed because another person has more than they do”. Its that they’re annoyed that they work hard and barely get by while seeing others benefit from their hard work.

I think I’m done trying to explain these things for a little while.